Why Capitalism Is Doomed: The Contradictions at Its Core

I suggest you research Operation Gladio for the reasons why communism failed in so many countries. Perhaps the CIA would like to explain why no
communists experiments in any country were allowed to succeed. Perhaps you need to research the above project name and have a revelation.

The problem with operation glaido being used to excuse all of this is it still ignores that nagging ole human nature that has reared its ugly head
again and again and again through out recorded history and will always be a constant threat to real communism or full scale socialism working

To my knowledge ( i may be wrong) it wasnt implemented on say kibbutzim and look what happened there. it fell apart on its own because the lazy
were leeching off of the hard working. people wanted more privacy and individual freedom and they just simply jump off the bandwagon as they didnt
wish to remain loyal to the community

So again we are back to perhaps and maybes which is the cornerstone of the communist argument.

The problem with people who think they had a revelation is they often merely trade one set of rose coloured glasses for another.

Originally posted by paganini
The problem with operation glaido being used to excuse all of this is it still ignores that nagging ole human nature that has reared its ugly head
again and again and again through out recorded history and will always be a constant threat to real communism or full scale socialism
working

Marxism specifically (and the philosophical additions added in Russia, particularly by Lenin and Trotsky) were specifically designed to target the
human instinct towards altruism and communal cohesion which exists in small groups, and superimpose said instinct with an ideology which
would ultimately lead to the exact opposite. The spirit and letter of Communism have become two diametrically opposite things, and this again was by
design. I fully support the spirit of it; the letter, not at all.

I am inclined to consider several of the earlier authors (particularly Kropotkin) to have remained uncontaminated, and to provide a genuinely positive
philosophical elaboration for the human instinct towards altruistic behaviour. Trotsky and Lenin in particular, however, are where the main problem
was.

Remember; when Kropotkin wrote about mutual aid, one of his main case studies was ants. Ants exist in their own localised hive; you don't have every
single ant on the planet all existing within a single universal hive. Nature does not design in the direction of universal centralisation, but in
terms of localised decentralisation.

Leon Trotsky was specifically named within Red Symphony as having been an agent of the Illuminati. The entire purpose of their institutional
Communism as far as the Illuminati is concerned, is to lead the human population into creating a system of global federalism, which will then lead to
a perpetual and irremovable form of global tyranny; while keeping said population believing that they are actually working towards the opposite, their
freedom, until it is too late. That is the entire reason why the Internationale as a concept exists, and is one of the main reasons why I am opposed
to internationalism generally.

The main problem that the cabal started to have in Russia, was the fact that Stalin was a nationalist. Stalin was basically a mistake; he hadn't been
intended to reach the position he did, and he was primarily interested in his own country, Russia. The Illuminati wanted an internationalist focus,
which was the entire reason why they brought Trotsky into the picture, as their man within the Bolsheviki, to try and bring Stalin back into line.

When that failed, as we saw, the cabal then resorted to Hitler as a means of using both forces to cancel each other out. When that in turn failed,
the cabal then used WW2, in the minds of the public, as the rationale for forming the United Nations, which kept the push towards world federalism
going.

Originally posted by petrus4Marxism specifically (and the philosophical additions added in Russia, particularly by Lenin and Trotsky)
were specifically designed to target the human instinct towards altruism and communal cohesion which exists in small groups

maybe so, but Marx himself felt that Marxism would have to first be implemented fully throughout one of the world's foremost economic super powers
which, in his time, he felt should have been Germany, in order for it to take proper effect. this is why many of today's Marxists argue that it
failed principally because it first occurred in Russia where production wasn't even it's strong point to begin with for various reasons.

I am inclined to consider several of the earlier authors (particularly Kropotkin) to have remained uncontaminated, and to provide a genuinely
positive philosophical elaboration for the human instinct towards altruistic behaviour. Trotsky and Lenin in particular, however, are where the main
problem was.

completely agreed.

Remember; when Kropotkin wrote about mutual aid, one of his main case studies was ants. Ants exist in their own localised hive; you don't
have every single ant on the planet all existing within a single universal hive. Nature does not design in the direction of universal centralisation,
but in terms of localised decentralisation.

The main problem that the cabal started to have in Russia, was the fact that Stalin was a nationalist. Stalin was basically a mistake; he
hadn't been intended to reach the position he did, and he was primarily interested in his own country, Russia. The Illuminati wanted an
internationalist focus, which was the entire reason why they brought Trotsky into the picture, as their man within the Bolsheviki, to try and bring
Stalin back into line.

Stalin actually sent Trotsky into exile in Mexico and had him assassinated. while i do not consider Lenin or Trotsky to have been true socialists,
Stalin was so far from those ideologies that he made both of them seem as radically socialist as Kropotkin.

When that failed, as we saw, the cabal then resorted to Hitler as a means of using both forces to cancel each other out. When that in turn
failed, the cabal then used WW2, in the minds of the public, as the rationale for forming the United Nations, which kept the push towards world
federalism going.

edit on 28-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

while i generally agree that we need more decentralized order, anyone claiming that we need to avoid a global market has their mind in the past. you
cannot live in the 21st century and not recognize that with our current technological capabilities, trade and communications among individuals on
opposite sides of the globe is completely inevitable. therefore, we do need to, at least in some minimal way, collectively make decisions regarding
the global economy.

Originally posted by petrus4Marxism specifically (and the philosophical additions added in Russia, particularly by Lenin and Trotsky)
were specifically designed to target the human instinct towards altruism and communal cohesion which exists in small groups

maybe so, but Marx himself felt that Marxism would have to first be implemented fully throughout one of the world's foremost economic super powers
which, in his time, he felt should have been Germany, in order for it to take proper effect. this is why many of today's Marxists argue that it
failed principally because it first occurred in Russia where production wasn't even it's strong point to begin with for various reasons.

From what I've read about Marx, I am not inclined to view him as an individual as particularly trustworthy. The cabal choose their own people to
become the most well-known. Kropotkin and Bakunin might still be known about, but comparitively speaking, they have been left in the background. I
suspect far fewer people have also heard of them, than have heard of Marx.

I don't believe that he was the first person to come up with his ideas, as mentioned. I believe he was chosen by the Illuminati (specifically, the
Rothschilds) to act as their publicist, for the material that he was given. He might to a degree have genuinely believed in the movement; I'm not
implying he didn't. There must have been a vulnerability present, however, for them to exploit.

Stalin actually sent Trotsky into exile in Mexico and had him assassinated. while i do not consider Lenin or Trotsky to have been true
socialists, Stalin was so far from those ideologies that he made both of them seem as radically socialist as Kropotkin.

I read comparisons made between Stalin and Napoleon. Stalin to me was basically a self-server, to a large extent, but he didn't really seem to have
so much of an internationalist or imperial agenda. He seemed to be primarily concerned with feathering his own nest, which largely meant Russia. The
international or global revolution stuff was mainly Trotsky.

That, however, was also a major smoking gun for me that Trotsky was Illuminati. Mayer Amschel Rothschild was supposed to have put up a sign outside
his house, saying that he was an advocate of global revolution. The Illuminati use revolution as a means of institutional theft, or the
re-acquisition of property into their own hands. They tell everyone else that the purpose of revolution is to make the common man free, but that is
not their real purpose with it. Their real purpose is for everyone else to lose what they own during the looting and chaos, and they end up getting
hold of it in the process.

That is what they did during the Depression, and again in 2008. It's the reason why they deliberately engineer economic systems with structural
flaws and weaknesses built in. Eventually they know that they are going to want to crash the system. They do it in waves, and every time they do it,
they end up with more and more property, and everyone else with less.

while i generally agree that we need more decentralized order, anyone claiming that we need to avoid a global market has their mind in the
past. you cannot live in the 21st century and not recognize that with our current technological capabilities, trade and communications among
individuals on opposite sides of the globe is completely inevitable. therefore, we do need to, at least in some minimal way, collectively make
decisions regarding the global economy.

I'm a bigger advocate of the Internet in particular than most people, eboyd. However, there are a lot of things about the current international
system that seriously need changing. I can remember being told by someone living in New Zealand during my permaculture course, that they could not
buy, in that country, the dairy products that were made locally, because it was enforced that they were to be sold exclusively internationally. To me
that is insane.

I like what I've been seeing of the co-op system. I think that could really help.

Originally posted by petrus4From what I've read about Marx, I am not inclined to view him as an individual as particularly trustworthy.
The cabal choose their own people to become the most well-known. Kropotkin and Bakunin might still be known about, but comparitively speaking, they
have been left in the background. I suspect far fewer people have also heard of them, than have heard of Marx.

this is what i see as the biggest flaw in your ideology as well as the ideologies of others. if for no other reason you should be open to reading Marx
and reading about his ideas because you will know the ideas of your enemy and be able to act accordingly. brushing off Marx as though none of his
ideas have validity because according to you he was an Illuminati shill just prevents you from opening your mind to his ideas and doesn't allow you
to understand what he has to say. i see the same problems with people who refuse to read the writings of, say, the Unabomber just because he killed a
bunch of people. guess what: a lot of what he said had validity. he made some very interesting and important points, but just because he did horrible
things those points don't matter? nonsense. read some Marx. i'm sure you will learn something from it, even if you simply learn about his "sinister
schemes."

I'm a bigger advocate of the Internet in particular than most people, eboyd. However, there are a lot of things about the current
international system that seriously need changing. I can remember being told by someone living in New Zealand during my permaculture course, that
they could not buy, in that country, the dairy products that were made locally, because it was enforced that they were to be sold exclusively
internationally. To me that is insane.

I like what I've been seeing of the co-op system. I think that could really help.

i cosign this thought completely. while i understand that we need to be conscientious that we live in a global economy now and that we simply cannot
live in some alternate universe where the global economy no longer exists, i also recognize that things need to be organized locally first and the
global economy should come last, with the local economy being most important and every successive level outside of it being less and less important to
a specific locality. of course it is important for networking and mutual aid between localities, especially when specific localities produce in
abundance and others have rampant scarcity.

Originally posted by petrus4
From what I've read about Marx, I am not inclined to view him as an individual as particularly trustworthy.

That is a ridiculous reason to reject Marxism.

The 'Communist Manifesto' was the updated version of the second draft of the Manifesto written by Engels ('The Principles of Communism'). It was
updated after a meeting of the Communist League in 1848, and Marx was commissioned to write it.

(Even though both are credited for the 'Communist Manifesto', Engels contribution was just what was used from his second draft, which was later
published by itself in the early 1900's)

So Marx did not invent 'Marxism'. His personal character has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Oh and replace the ridiculous term 'Illuminati' (another distraction from the truth) with capitalist and you'd be closer to the truth mate. People
like David Icke tell the truth, but shroud it in such ridiculous nonsense so the average Joe simply rejects it, and any other talk of this kind of
conspiracy. Hiding the truth in plane site.

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh and replace the ridiculous term 'Illuminati' (another distraction from the truth) with capitalist and you'd be closer to the truth mate.

This isn't true, ANOK; and I'm afraid I have history to back me up, here.

Socialists (that is, people who advocate a genuinely non-psychopathic society, unlike the Illuminati-fed bait and switch that Marx gave you) aren't
going to start winning, until you become willing to recognise who the enemy really is. It's just like what I'm reading here, about Franco having won
the Spanish Civil War. He was supported by foreign powers; the Nazis, the Irish.

That is why the cabal keep winning; because they are internationalists. Any time you try and initiate resistance to them in any one country, they
bring multiple other countries against you, to the point where you are numerically overwhelmed.

We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these
neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.
-- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion 7:3

You keep saying that the cause of the problem is Capitalism itself, and I keep telling you that you're not going high enough up the causal chain. You
can try and advocate your position to me as much as you like; and my response will continue to be that while I do greatly value the end
goal that you have in mind, I don't accept two specific points.

a] That Capitalism is the sole and ultimate source of the problem. It is not. Capitalism is a symptom; it is not the disease itself.

b] Marx has taught you to think of yourselves as victims. Marxist ideology emphasises victimhood more than virtually anything else. This is
enormously disempowering, as it robs you of any remote semblance of either sovereignty or responsibility for your actions.

Marxism consistently depicts people as the helpless prey of someone else. Nothing is ever the individual's own responsibility. It's always someone
else's fault. This was by deliberate design. The very act of protest itself, is in effect an act of asking Capitalist or governmental
permission for things to improve. Hunger striking, civil disobedience; they are all fundamentally expressions of victimhood, and they
all fundamentally make the same statement.

That the author of the basic paradigm or reality in which an individual has to live, is someone else. That the individual has no capacity to
control his or her reality or destiny for themselves, whatsoever. That even though it may not always seem like it, even death itself is a choice to
be made or not made.

The above is the difference between true anarchism, and literally anything else, including Marxist-Leninist Communism. I acknowledge that whatever
happens to me, is ultimately my own responsibility. Marxists don't.

The great irony here, is that Marxism usually goes hand in hand with atheism, and the adamant cry that God will not be your master. Yet you
consistently trade God as a master, for human beings.

Wow, that was painful. Are there enough pictures? They kind of made my brain hurt.

In any event I find that if one is going to examine "Capitalism" you best be keenly aware that the current world order is not Capitalism as it is
theoretically proposed and, once upon a time, achieved. The current system is actually better described as the corrupted form of capitalism known as
merchantism... or Oligarchy (rule of the wealthy).

Capitalism was meant to work for the good of all via harnessing and confining greed via competition. Looking around at the current economic /
political system... one would be hard pressed to say that Big Business has not found a way around that pesky little profit killing problem of
competition... of being forced to give a fair wage and sell at a fair price.

If you wish to read fully on the subject... arguably the best damn thing I have ever read on the subject... I would go to...

theomnist.com

...and read The Omnist Manifesto. It is arguably the best all encompassing information on the subject of "The Mortal Disease" (current world
political/economic woes) I have ever see.

Originally posted by petrus4
This isn't true, ANOK; and I'm afraid I have history to back me up, here.

Sorry but I don't buy it. It is nothing but distraction to make you look in the wrong direction.

Socialists (that is, people who advocate a genuinely non-psychopathic society, unlike the Illuminati-fed bait and switch that Marx gave you)
aren't going to start winning, until you become willing to recognise who the enemy really is. It's just like what I'm reading here, about Franco
having won the Spanish Civil War. He was supported by foreign powers; the Nazis, the Irish.

What bait and fix? Again Marx did NOT invent Marxism. The Communist Manifesto was based on a draft by Engels. What Marx added was what was decided
at a meeting of MANY socialists, the Communist League.

Socialism had been around long before the Communist Manifesto was written.

That is why the cabal keep winning; because they are internationalists. Any time you try and initiate resistance to them in any one country,
they bring multiple other countries against you, to the point where you are numerically overwhelmed.

Yes they are internationalists, capitalists interests lie in making profit, not allegiance to a country. That is why US companies send their
manufacturing to third world countries. Nothing to do with Illuminati, but simply making more profit from lower wages and operating costs.

You keep saying that the cause of the problem is Capitalism itself, and I keep telling you that you're not going high enough up the causal
chain. You can try and advocate your position to me as much as you like; and my response will continue to be that while I do greatly
value the end goal that you have in mind, I don't accept two specific points.

a] That Capitalism is the sole and ultimate source of the problem. It is not. Capitalism is a symptom; it is not the disease itself.

b] Marx has taught you to think of yourselves as victims. Marxist ideology emphasises victimhood more than virtually anything else. This is
enormously disempowering, as it robs you of any remote semblance of either sovereignty or responsibility for your actions.

Again I don't see any mythical group of people running things. That is pure fantasy. The reality is people we know very well are the ones running
things through their economic power. Is it not a huge coincidence that the Bush family are oil capitalists, and two of them became presidents and
their interests were the middle east?

Marxism consistently depicts people as the helpless prey of someone else. Nothing is ever the individual's own responsibility. It's always
someone else's fault. This was by deliberate design. The very act of protest itself, is in effect an act of asking Capitalist or governmental
permission for things to improve. Hunger striking, civil disobedience; they are all fundamentally expressions of victimhood, and they
all fundamentally make the same statement.

I don't think you have read Marx and understand what he said, because that is nonsense.

The only power the worker has is to protest. The workers ARE victims of the capitalist system.

The above is the difference between true anarchism, and literally anything else, including Marxist-Leninist Communism. I acknowledge that
whatever happens to me, is ultimately my own responsibility. Marxists don't.

No anarchism is a form of socialism, socialists believe in personal freedom and responsibility, even Marxists.

It seems like you have not read anything that has been discussed here. I have explained over and over how socialism is personal freedom through the
ownership of the means of production. That is the ONLY way for true liberty and is why anarchists are socialists.

The great irony here, is that Marxism usually goes hand in hand with atheism, and the adamant cry that God will not be your master. Yet you
consistently trade God as a master, for human beings.

The great irony is you still fail to understand what socialism is. You also fail to understand that socialism is not atheist, but does not support
organized religion, as that is another institution of authority.

How does Marxism make humans masters? Again this has been explained. Once again, the goal of Marxist AND anarchists is FREE ASSOCIATION...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community
of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that
had abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to
means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and
fulfill their needs and desires.

But while people know that Marx had very little sympathy for certain anarchists, it is not so generally known that despite this he still shared
the anarchist ideal and objectives: the disappearance of the State. It is therefore pertinent to recall that in embracing the cause of working class
emancipation, Marx started off in the anarchist tradition rather than in that of socialism or communism; and that, when finally he chose to call
himself a “communist,” for him this term did not refer to one of the communist currents which then existed, but rather to a movement of thought
and mode of action which had yet to be founded by gathering together all the revolutionary elements which had been inherited from existing doctrines
and from the experience of past struggles.

hey leftist I can't say I disagree with your stance on capitalism, pretty much every criticism you levelled at it is true but every system of
government has its strengths and flaws and if all systems are flawed then people need to decide what they want out of a system.

I look at technological development in the last hundred years and I am astounded, I then look at technology that is clearly on the horizon such as 3D
printer and space elevators and technologies that are less clear as to when they will manifest such as AI and robotics.

The effects of these technological advancements on society will be huge and for some of them hard to predict. While capitalism at least in the form we
see it today is certainly headed for its death bed, what will replace it is at least to me, impossible to predict.

So knowing that that we face the unknown the most sensible solution is to pick the most flexible form of government that allows for the greatest
number changes to culture and to how people live there lives in the shortest period of time.

While in theory anarchism follows this, in reality the abuse the naturally forms in any system would form too quickly in an anarchist for it to be as
free as it seems. What I believe we need is as much freedom as possible without endangering peoples fundamental rights such as peoples right to live
without fear of being tortured with hot pointy needles.

Essentially I think we should follow a libertarian model of government

In such environments capitalism naturally tends to arise but I don't think the government should have a hand in it either to encourage or discourage
it.

If... no when the current form of capitalism is replaced a blank slate government like that would hopefully help the transition to be as smooth as
possible.

That said and done I don't believe communism to be a system of government to be any better or worse than capitalism, although I'll admit my
knowledge of communism isn't as thorough as it really should be.

by the way welcome to ATS (even if it is a belated welcome) and keep up the good threads

Originally posted by Philosopher215
In any event I find that if one is going to examine "Capitalism" you best be keenly aware that the current world order is not Capitalism as it is
theoretically proposed and, once upon a time, achieved.

Yes it is.

Capitalism is an economic system, whereby the means of production are privately owned and ran for profit.

I don't see where that is not keenly practiced the world over.

What ever happens with government, or state, doesn't stop the economic system being capitalist.

What theories are you talking about? Anyone can make claims as to how they wish a system to be ran, but it's not the definition of the term. I mean
socialists predicted the outcome of capitalism in the 1800's, because hierarchical authoritarian systems by their very nature seek more authority and
control.

Government has always been ran by the capitalist class. It wasn't until the 1920's that the UK got a 'labour party' made up of working people,
not those from the capitalist class. It was touted as the route to socialism, but as all governments it became about authority, and power for itself
instead of empowering the working class as it was supposed to. That is why some socialists are anarchists.

"Capitalism" is a term from the socialists. It assumes that the european social structure derived from kings and aristocrats is the only system
possible. Socialism assumes that a hierarchy can be controlled by the people at the bottom. If that were true there would be no hierarchies.

Capitalism is not the absencse of socialism, it is socialism by people the current revolutionaries can't command. Meet the new boss same as the old
boss.

Socialism has to be a government, by definition, because it guaranties that everything is "Fair and Balanced"

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
"Capitalism" is a term from the socialists. It assumes that the european social structure derived from kings and aristocrats is the only system
possible. Socialism assumes that a hierarchy can be controlled by the people at the bottom. If that were true there would be no
hierarchies.

Yes capitalism is a left wing term. The original definition was from the French socialist Louis Blanc and he defined the term as "the appropriation
of capital by some to the exclusion of others." It was later defined by Marxists as "the private ownership of the means of production." A economic
system where by the means of production are privately owned, and ran for profit by exploiting labour.

Socialism is simply "the workers ownership of the means of production". Again an economic system, it can be ran and organized in different ways.

Capitalism is not the absencse of socialism, it is socialism by people the current revolutionaries can't command. Meet the new boss same as
the old boss.

It is not the absence of socialism. The idea of socialism for the wealthy is not literal. Unless the workers own the means of production, they have
the right to the fruits of their labour, then it is not socialism.

We have socialism in America, worker owned companies are socialist, as that is the definition.

Socialism has nothing to do with handouts from a government. In a socialist system there would be no need for government handouts. Once the workers
own the means of production they would be producing for their needs, rather than the greed of the private owner who keep his product artificially
scarce in order to make profit.
Once the profit motive is removed then there is no reason for anyone to go without.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue
to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

Socialism has to be a government, by definition, because it guaranties that everything is "Fair and Balanced"

No it doesn't. Anarchism is one of the forms of socialism, as is communism, and the goal of both is 'free association'...

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community
of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that
had abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to
means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and
fulfill their needs and desires.

Socialism can be organised by voluntary worker organizations in their own work places and communities, not by a centralized state or government.

Communism in its true form is libertarian as in there is no government or state. This has all been misrepresented by the right wing state, since
WWII, in order to confuse and keep the working class from organizing again as they did in the 20's and 30's.

Socialism would exsist naturally in a free market system because many people would choose to work for a big company, where
specialization would be prized and lower skill level jobs would still be available also. Socialism could be very popular and be the basis for urban
life.

But socialisic retoric sounds to me, usually, like a call to change the leadership of our current system. Why do socialists always ignore the free
market dynamic and go directly for everything must be socalist first? If labor unions had bougth stock in the companies they interacted with, the
relationship would have been better for everyone in the economy. Instead the socialist labor unions make demands based on demogogy and the rich at
the top buy off the demagoges one way or another.

Socialism would exsist in a free market to the extent that it worked out best for every one. However, a free market does not exsist in a socialism
system without specific enumeration.

Communism always gets hyjacked, and the free market always gets "governed". There never has been a free market or communist sytem out side of a
religious envelope.

The difference is that in a free market system a person's rights are based on tangble property, where as in a communist system all rights are based
on language.

Socialism would exsist naturally in a free market system because many people would choose to work for a big company, where
specialization would be prized and lower skill level jobs would still be available also. Socialism could be very popular and be the basis for urban
life.

Hmm not sure what you're saying. What do you mean by 'free-market'? If you mean capitalism, capitalism is not free-market. Free-market has been
around since the begging of economies, capitalism only came into being when it replaced feudalism. Before the 1600's no one had surplus capital to
invest, that came about when the laws changed allowing land owners to deny the use of their land to the 'commoners', forcing them into factories and
mills, where they were exploited by the land owners (capitalists) to make mass wealth for themselves.

That has nothing to do with free-market.

How would socialism exist naturally? Are the capitalists simply going to give up their ownership?

What has big companies got to do with it?

But socialisic retoric sounds to me, usually, like a call to change the leadership of our current system. Why do socialists always ignore the
free market dynamic and go directly for everything must be socalist first? If labor unions had bougth stock in the companies they interacted with, the
relationship would have been better for everyone in the economy. Instead the socialist labor unions make demands based on demogogy and the rich at
the top buy off the demagoges one way or another.

Sorry but I really have no idea what you're talking about? What socialists?

Why would unions buy stock? That is not socialism.

Socialism is a call to change the whole economic system, so that labour is not exploited by a minority class of capitalist owners. So that workers
own the rights to the products they produce and can receive the full fruits of their labour.

Leadership is not the point. We don't need leadership we need empowerment.

Socialism would exsist in a free market to the extent that it worked out best for every one. However, a free market does not exsist in a
socialism system without specific enumeration.

Socialism is completely free-market. If the workers own the means of production, then there are no artificial restrictions on production, and we can
produce for our needs. As apposed the greed of the few.

Communism always gets hyjacked, and the free market always gets "governed". There never has been a free market or communist sytem out side of
a religious envelope.

Huh?

The difference is that in a free market system a person's rights are based on tangble property, where as in a communist system all rights are
based on language.

Again you are confused lol. What is a free-market system, capitalism?

Capitalism is not free-market except for capitalists, a minority in our world. The majority of people are working class, as in they have nothing but
their labour to sell. If it was free-market, workers would own the rights to the fruits of their labour, and have the right to do what they want with
it. That is socialism.

A free market means the consumer is free to buy anything and the producer is free to produce anything. Any person can decide to work (as a producer
of labor) for a company and that company would have a socialistic relationship with it's workers, if that is what the workers wanted. I am granting
you that the workers owning (through stock, that is what stock is, ownership) their company is potentially a good thing all around. That is the
socilaism that would exsist in a free market.

"Capitalism" is a socialist spin on private ownership and personal natural rights to enable a rationale for a centralized command economy. The MSM
on behalf of TPTB like to use the term Capitalism because they can switch a few visable positions in the heirarchy and call the changes progressive or
socialist. It would look like an improvement to you but it would just be a limited hangout redirection of attention. The more things change the more
they stay the same.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Economic Philosophies don't fail or succeed, people do. Communism, Capitalism, socialism are meaningless terms because no one can agree as to what
they mean. Economics is nothing more than the exchange of wealth and materials between parties. Exchanges that benefit both parties succeed, while
those that do not, fail to varying degrees. I call an exchange between two parties of goods or services a success if it is a win-win. Any other
scenario results in further uneven scenarios, which lead to ultimate failure.
Simplifying economic systems: Aim for win-win exchanges.
No need for economists, philosophers, ideologues, hammers and sickles, or flag wavers.

the first place for the win-win philosophy to take shape would be in our business schools. unfortunately, they are setup as a winner-loser training
ground.
having more labor in this day and age means you are losing profits, not increasing business.

I know what free-market is, I was asking for you to clarify your use of the term. If you mean capitalism, say capitalism not 'free-market'. This is
not a debate about free-market, but capitalism.

A lot of people make the mistake of confusing those terms.

How am I against free-market? I am against capitalism, capitalism again is not free-market.

Please, capitalism and free-market are not synonyms, that is a mistake. Capitalist can claim its free-market all day, but that is NOT the definition
of the term. Free-market does not need capitalism.

Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in free markets, not capitalism. They defend a
distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up
capitalists.

A free market means the consumer is free to buy anything and the producer is free to produce anything. Any person can decide to work (as a
producer of labor) for a company and that company would have a socialistic relationship with it's workers, if that is what the workers wanted. I am
granting you that the workers owning (through stock, that is what stock is, ownership) their company is potentially a good thing all around. That is
the socilaism that would exsist in a free market.

No socialism is not owning stock in a company. Socialism once again is workers owning the place they work at.
Workers autonomously own the product they produce. Owning stock is not the same thing, that is a capitalist concept based on profit.

"Capitalism" is a socialist spin on private ownership and personal natural rights to enable a rationale for a centralized command economy. The
MSM on behalf of TPTB like to use the term Capitalism because they can switch a few visable positions in the heirarchy and call the changes
progressive or socialist. It would look like an improvement to you but it would just be a limited hangout redirection of attention. The more things
change the more they stay the same.

No, capitalism IS private ownership, that is the definition. Socialism is not centralized command economy. Even in Marxism the means of production
is owned by the workers, the state is a temporary situation to organize production, and its distribution until the artificial scarcity caused by
capitalism is reversed and profit making is unnecessary.

Socialism can be organized ANY way the workers decide is best for them. It is not a political system with rules, other than it is worker
ownership.

Marxism IS a political system, Anarchism IS a political system, they both support an economic system of socialism.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.